Ninety-five percent of the time the law is so clear that it's just a matter of applying the law. I'm not somebody who believes in a bunch of judicial law-making.

What you're looking for is somebody who is going to apply the law where it's clear. Now there's gonna be those five percent of cases or one percent of cases where the law isn't clear. And the judge has to then bring in his or her own perspectives, his ethics, his or her moral bearings. And In those circumstance what I do want is a judge who is sympathetic enough to those who are on the outside, those who are vulnerable, those who are powerless, those who can't have access to political power and as a consequence can't protect themselves from being being dealt with sometimes unfairly, that the courts become a refuge for justice. That's been its historic role. That was its role in Brown v Board of Education.

We've got to make sure civil rights are protected. We have got to make sure civil liberties are protected. Because oftentimes there are pressures that are placed on politicians to want to set civil liberties aside, especially at times when we've had terrorist attacks. Making sure we maintain our separation of powers so we dont have a president who is taking over more and more power.

Now, Obama fashions himself a Constitutional scholar. That makes these two paragraphs that much more stunning. First of all, to say that 95% of the time the application of the law is clear shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the dynamics of the judicial system. Cases are routinely appealed not because the law is clear, but because it is unclear. We set up a system of appeals judges not to decide cases where the verdict is obvious but where it isn't obvious. The Supreme Court doesn't normally take on cases where the outcome is a mere formality, but rather the exact opposite. 9-0 rulings are rather rare in the Supreme Court. Yet, Obama makes the case that the dynamics of the Supreme Court are such that 9-0 rulings are routine.

Of course, this lack of understanding is quite mild, and certainly nothing compared to the second part of his statement.

And In those circumstance what I do want is a judge who is sympathetic enough to those who are on the outside, those who are vulnerable, those who are powerless, those who can't have access to political power and as a consequence can't protect themselves from being being dealt with sometimes unfairly, that the courts become a refuge for justice.

Now let's think about this statement for a minute. Let's suppose a murderer of a six year old has his case in front of the Supreme Court. Let's say the murderer is arguing a fourth amendment issue. Let's say the issue is not clear. Obama's perspective is he wants judges to apply the law to favor the six year old.

Let's take another example. Let's suppose an employee and a fortune five hundred company have a dispute and they are arguing a fourteenth amendment issue. Let's say the decision isn't clear in that case either. Obama would want a judge that would support the employee and find that issue in favor of them.

In other words, at worst, Obama wants a judge that will ignore their interpretation of the constitution in order to help the weak and downtrodden. At best, he wants a judge to twist the Constitution to favor the little guy. We all want to help the weak, however Obama is simply wrong when he says this...

consequence can't protect themselves from being being dealt with sometimes unfairly, that the courts become a refuge for justice. That's been its historic role. That was its role in Brown v Board of Education.

The court is NOT there ONLY to protect those that can't protect themselves. It is there to protect everyone. I, for one, don't want a judge with a clear bias to the weak. I want a judge with no bias. I want a judge that looks at the facts of the case and applies the Constitution regardless of whether that helps the weak or the powerful. Obama wants any gray areas to be ruled in favor of the weak. Taking that to its logical conclusion we will have a twisted and haphazard interpretation of the Constitution that has no logic or continuity. All it will have is an outlet where the weak and the powerful will have their roles reversed.

If you take a look at the link I provided regarding his stance on abortion, you will see he supported infanticide in the Illinois Senate. It was a process by which the baby was killed after a failed abortion. It doesn't get anymore radical than that.